Personal Growth

[Aggie]

I don't even dare to allow myself indulging in other philosophies out of fear to forfeit/ corrupt my own reasoning source. I prefer to process  data on my own accord live, then compare it to other people's reasoning, finally amend it by trial & error as well as constructive criticism of others.

Curious... especially because you feel that others might benefit from your philosophy! 
Yet this would actually be against your own personal philosophy.  While I respect the desire for self-reliance, it's difficult to judge how insightful your philosophies might be to others, if you don't know how insightful other philosophies are!

I approach my personal development the way I approach science or cooking - I am not afraid to take previously established information, test it for myself, and then add my own insights to achieve further development and the synthesis of new ideas.  And even with my 'new' ideas, I find later that nearly all of them have previously been discovered!  This doesn't make the self-directed discovery any less joyous, but it does keep me humble!  I am firmly convinced that anything I can think up has been already thought of, but it's more efficient to make new mental connections your self than filter-feed through the entirety of human knowledge.


jjj, it may amuse you to know that much of what I've seen of your personal philosophy is superficially very similar to LaVeyan Satanism (this is not a negative thing; I have quite a bit of respect for Satanic philosophy, although they get rather silly about imagery and ceremony IMHO).

[Griffin NoName]

When I suggested reading Maslow, this is not helpful?
Not really, because I prefer to be confront by the problem/ task in context.

By your answer I am assuming you have read some Maslow (in your homework perhaps) because you make the point about problem/task in context so I am guessing you know that Maslow says stuff about general needs not in particular context. For example satisfying "need" for air to breathe. Although one could say that is in the context of staying alive !

This makes me wonder about your insights again. Philosophy is such that it can be applied to many contexts. But you are saying you are interested in specific problems and tasks - specifics. So this seems like two different things to me. How can the insights you speak of be a Philosophy?

Aggie, you say jjj's approach is like LeVeyan Satanism and I admit to knowing next to nothing about that. Is it a Philosophy in the sense I understand Philosophy (as I explain here).

[Aggie]

It's a definitely a philosophy, with some tacked-on pseudoreligious trappings.  Well, I suppose they are religious trappings for real Satanists, but they are admittedly constructed by LaVey as aids rather than being divinely dictated.  It emphasizes being conscious of one's own strengths and weaknesses, and adressing these traits to find your own ways of self-empowerment, including manipulation of others.

The philosophy falls a little towards Social Darwinism (in places), but at the level of the individual, not entire peoples.

I like to think of the Satanic Bible as "Lucifer's Little Self-Help Manual", especially as most of the philosophical guidance is limited to the Book of Lucifer.

[Griffin NoName]

It emphasizes being conscious of one's own strengths and weaknesses, and adressing these traits to find your own ways of self-empowerment, including manipulation of others.

So this is where it links into what jjj's describing then?

Perhaps my personal definition of Philosophy is a little off ?

[Aggie]

It emphasizes being conscious of one's own strengths and weaknesses, and adressing these traits to find your own ways of self-empowerment, including manipulation of others.

So this is where it links into what jjj's describing then?

Perhaps my personal definition of Philosophy is a little off ?

Well, there's some parallels. I think 'links in' might be too strong.

And re: your definition of philosophy, that bit is more the functional development side.  The philosophy is more about how you use the concept of self as a platform to address any challenge or problem at hand.  I still think my definitions of 'philosophy' is less rigid (and correct) than yours.

[jjj]

Curious... especially because you feel that others might benefit from your philosophy! Yet this would actually be against your own personal philosophy. While I respect the desire for self-reliance, it's difficult to judge how insightful your philosophies might be to others, if you don't know how insightful other philosophies are!

Life's too short to peruse and compare countless philosophies. As mentioned, initially, I tried to get help from philosophies of the past, but this endeavor failed. Thus, I simply used the pragmatic tool of self-reliance and since this method worked, I don't really miss alternative methods. I found what works for me and now, I'm merely trying to compare other people's insight to mine and share the gained insight.
 

- I am not afraid to take previously established information, test it for myself, and then add my own insights to achieve further development and the synthesis of new ideas.  And even with my 'new' ideas,

Weird, same with me! Now I'm curious how others do/ have done and enjoy amending insight. One never gets enough of good thing...

I find later that nearly all of them have previously been discovered!  This doesn't make the self-directed discovery any less joyous...

Yes, I love to re-invent the wheel, too! For instance, I re-invented a small heating blanket I can put onto my arthritis ridden knees and built a powerful, ducted vacuum cleaning system, able to connect any strong vacuum cleaner or only its fan motor. I fix electronics, plumber jobs etc. I suppose from that stems the drive to fix philosophical ambitions as well.

...of what I've seen of your personal philosophy is superficially very similar to LaVeyan Satanism (this is not a negative thing...

Interesting! I was told it even contains Buddhism, Hinduism etc. Yet, I swear that I didn't copy a thing from either of them. At least it proves that I did some homework. It makes it terribly hard to remain humble when the results are too positive. One feels like trumpeting the secrets so, that others can benefit from it, too. In fact it has little/ nothing to do with the contrary of humbleness; it's rather a compelling duty and joy to share it IMHO.
Deep inside in most of us benevolent Bros dwells the desire to contribute towards a better society and the best way to do it is to disclose & share our insight; sharing the wisdom, which effectively helped/ helps us to progress/enjoy our contentment.
This can only be achieved when we are willing to help each other to solve our philosophical dilemma, to minimize suffering and so, guide each other to quality of life. In this way our vision of a better society becomes tangible.
That's why I like the presence of good will/ intentions, solidarity and the progressive spirit in this forum. The personal problem I still have is my flawed style communication/ tone and I may I supplicate your help in this matter?
I guess this more a cosmetic problem, but since it can be irritating in the long run, I welcome your frank suggestions. I promise to take advice (no offense) to my best ability and so, improve my communication skills at the same time. How about that?

[Darlica]

Both of your assumptions are correct, because most of these fora cling to established philosophical ideologies to which I don't subscribe. I am more interested in the pragmatic aspect of philosophical progress on both, the individualistic and social realm.
I don't even dare to allow myself indulging in other philosophies out of fear to forfeit/ corrupt my own reasoning source. I prefer to process  data on my own accord live, then compare it to other people's reasoning, finally amend it by trial & error as well as constructive criticism of others.
Mind you I had to do my homework first to be able to do it in this way.
After decades of practice this process has become much easier to perform.

When I suggested reading Maslow, this is not helpful?
Not really, because I prefer to be confront by the problem/ task in context.

I'll bring up this question again since it has been asked before but you seem to have missed it:
You don't see the benefits of reading other philosophies, but still you expect other people to accept your theories with out questioning them? How come?

Also, I have theories of my own about how to achieve balance and progress in life, and I like to discuss those theories with my friends and loved ones. My friends also have their own personal theories, actually most people have this kind of theories, but for both me and them, these theories remain just theories, and having theories doesn't make us philosophers. What made you sure your life-theories and your insight would be fit to help for others?



Curiously
/D

[jjj]

You don't see the benefits of reading other philosophies, but still you expect other people to accept your theories with out questioning them?

You see, I don't expect other people to accept my theories without questioning them! Beside, I don't call my philosophical insight 'theories' anymore, because to me they are already 'proven, working facts'. Chances are that they work for other people, too.
In several postings I encouraged you to feel free to constructively question, criticize my statements. It's then that we will be able to discuss and compare our gained insight and/ or theories. That's what we are here for... to discuss our gained insight and/or theories. So, I'm sorry to contradict your claims.

What made you sure your life-theories and your insight would be fit to help for others?

Again, nothing of the sorts!  As already mentioned various times, I merely enjoy... (wait I copy from past postings...)
>>> enjoy to compare other people's insight to mine and share the gained insight I found worked and still works for me . Thus, feel free to doubt/ discredit my insight, for I have no scientific proof to back up any of my claims other than relying on personal observation, experiences and some practice in amateur reasoning. Chances are, my claims still somehow make sense to you and so, I would feel humbled and delighted to share them with you.
What more should I do to put my humble position clear?

[Bluenose]

I'm sorry jjj, but I am having a great deal of difficulty in seeing any  humbleness in your positions.  As I have said in other places in HOT and in other forums, I do not believe in absolute truth on any subject.  One of my most deeply held opinions is that you should never trust anyone who 'knows' they are right.  I question everything, including all my own views and even my own existance (if I am being all philosophical, like) but I do not see anything like that in your stated "philosophy".  I believe that once we think we have the answer we lose any chance we ever had of getting it, for it is not a destination, but a journey.  What you seem IMHO to be doing is confusing the certainty that comes from ossification of the attitudes with wisdom and truth.  You seem very sure of yourself.  It may be that you have found out something very profound.  OTOH, you may be calling juvenile Eastern Rosellas female Eastern Rosellas*.

_{* See my post in the Respect for the Aged thread http://toadfishmonastery.com/forum/index.php?topic=792.msg31909#msg31909}

[Darlica]

The joy of two strangers from different cultural settings, meeting in a virtual space where face and body language as well as tone of voice is non existent as an aid for interpretation. Especially when the common language is just common, not the first language of any of the two.

You don't see the benefits of reading other philosophies, but still you expect other people to accept your theories with out questioning them?

You see, I don't expect other people to accept my theories without questioning them! Beside, I don't call my philosophical insight 'theories' any more, because to me they are already 'proven, working facts'. Chances are that they work for other people, too.

I don't mean to be aggressive or snarky but as a fellow seeker I would like to know how (by what method) your philosophical insight is proven?

In several postings I encouraged you to feel free to constructively question, criticize my statements. It's then that we will be able to discuss and compare our gained insight and/ or theories. That's what we are here for... to discuss our gained insight and/or theories. So, I'm sorry to contradict your claims.

Don't be sorry about that.   

What made you sure your life-theories and your insight would be fit to help for others?

Again, nothing of the sorts!  As already mentioned various times, I merely enjoy... (wait I copy from past postings...)
>>> enjoy to compare other people's insight to mine and share the gained insight I found worked and still works for me . Thus, feel free to doubt/ discredit my insight, for I have no scientific proof to back up any of my claims other than relying on personal observation, experiences and some practice in amateur reasoning. Chances are, my claims still somehow make sense to you and so, I would feel humbled and delighted to share them with you.
What more should I do to put my humble position clear?

I was more thinking in the lines of that there has to have been a moment, a defining event when you realised that "this can help others!" (since you as I understand it have written several books so your aim is to spread your insights and there by help others, yes?) and I was wondering what that event was, what led up to the said event and what happened afterwards?

And it would be interesting to read more of a introduction to your insights, I have read your posts but they don't give me a clear and connected view of your opinions, therefore I can't properly discuss them. Post a broader explanation to your philosophy or a link where we can read one, then it would be much easier to give you the kind of feedback you might came here looking for.

[Alpaca]

I don't mean to be pushy, jjj, but it seems that my previous question was lost amid all the other posts, and I would love to see how you'd answer it.

I don't even dare to allow myself indulging in other philosophies out of fear to forfeit/ corrupt my own reasoning source. I prefer to process  data on my own accord live, then compare it to other people's reasoning, finally amend it by trial & error as well as constructive criticism of others.

Aren't other philosophies other people's reasoning?

Not to mention Ops's question after mine, at the bottom of page three.

[Opsa]

That would be where I asked if Hitler didn't have a similar theory about genetic superiority. I feel that jjj may be treading on very trecherous material, there and it makes me wary.

Like my dear Sibling Bluenose, I only accept theories. When something is presented as "absolute truth" I immediatly go into high cynicism alert. I do not believe that ANYONE knows the absolute truth, except possibly The Great Everything (a God-like concept we discuss here), but even It may not know. It just IS. (But that's only my theory!) 

[The Meromorph]

Damn it all SIblings, HOW DARE YOU HAVE A FASCINTING CONVERSATION LIKE THIS WHILE I WASN'T HERE!   

I'm forced to reiterate a previous sentiment -  Reading the posts of the others in this forum should teach anyone humility!

Jumping in with both feet...

I suspect that searching for wisdom, or even insight, in Philosphy has led many people to waste a lot of time and energy (and study). After long years, when I finally discovered Wittgenstein the Elder, and learned that he began to make sense in the real world only after retiring from philosophy (Wittgenstein the Younger) and spending time as a Kindergarten teacher, I gave up on Philosophers.
Sort of simultaneously I started to learn from Archeologists, Anhropologists, Ecologists, Science Fiction Writers, and Evolutionary Biologists, and others.
I learned a very great deal, and understood so very little!
A pivotal thing for me was taking part in a personal devlopment program, and learning how not to be such an asshole (in my forties .)
And my personal understanding started to come together with the thoughts of Julian Jaynes, and then Richard Dawkins, and Elaine Morgan, and Suzette Haden Elgin, followed later, and very productively by Jared Diamond and Stephen Pinker.  And it still goes on...
I think jjj may well be perfectly right about himself, but, for me, he fails to take into account a real understanding of Genetics, any understanding of the relationship of Genes to Embryology, all of the recent (last twenty years) work in Cognitive Neuroscience, or an understanding of just how different and diverse people are, not particularly cross-racially, or cross-culturally, but the very real differences between people sharing the same beds. From learning styles, to personality traits, to the huge effects of family environment...

[Darlica]

How does it goes that old proverb; "to recognize how little you know is the first step towards great wisdom"... 



Real philosophy and mathematics I usually leave to people with a passion for straight logic...

I'm a sceptic by nature, and not an expert in any field, but I'm curious, so enjoy reading a lot, and among the fields that I browse are archaeology, social and cultural anthropology and history. And I think that a key to understand oneself is to understand society of today (or at least try to understand it) and the key to understand any society is found in it's history -recent as well as the thousand year old.

To scrutinize a source or a theory is second nature to me, and if anyone comes along claiming to have a proven theory (and yes I'll stick to theory since even as well proved theories as Newtons gravity theory still is a theory even though most of us consider it a fact) I would want to see some scientific method that proves this "proven theory" or I have a very hard time to see how it can be proven...

Now science have many faces, and at least as as many methods.
Anthropologists for example mostly use either an empirical method or a inductive method.
Using the empirical method they derive data observing an empirical experiment rather that from a theory, but still in order to have proven something this experiment must have taken place time and time again under the same circumstances with the same results.
If they lean towards the inductive school they will instead use logic, collect "facts" from observation and form a theory about what happens and why, this is called "inductive reasoning".

Both methods has their pitfalls, the most famous example of criticism towards the inductive reasoning is  Bertrand Russell's "Inductivist Turkey"
"The turkey found that, on his first morning at the turkey farm, that he was fed at 9 a.m. Being a good inductivist turkey he did not jump to conclusions. He waited until he collected a large number of observations that he was fed at 9 am. and made these observations under a wide range of circumstances, on Wednesdays, on Thursdays, on cold days, on warm days. Each day he added another observation statement to his list. Finally he was satisfied that he had collected a number of observation statements to inductively infer that -I am always fed at 9 am. However on the morning of Christmas eve he was not fed but instead had his throat cut.''

Of cause it has flaws, since people aren't turkeys we can talk and doing so we can share knowledge with each other. But still It is in many ways true especially when consider armature inductive reasoning chains.


Curiously
/D

[Alpaca]

(and yes I'll stick to theory since even as well proved theories as Newtons gravity theory still is a theory even though most of us consider it a fact)

And to further illustrate your point, Darlica: 300 years after Newton, Einstein comes along and shows that, well, Newton's equations provide a good approximation of the effects of gravity under certain specific circumstances, but they're still incorrect, despite 300 years of evidence to the contrary.